Plaintiffs Ross Missaghi and Charles Thompson bring this putative consumer class actionagainst Defendant Apple, Inc. pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt OrganizationsAct (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962 regarding Apple’s iPhone 4 and 4s devices. Plaintiffs’ RICOclaim asserts that Apple and non-party AT&T formed an enterprise – a joint venture – to sell asmany iPhones as possible and that Apple participated in the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity involving the concealment of a design defect that caused the iPhone’s power button to become stuck after a number of uses rendering many functions of the deviceunusable. Plaintiffs believe that Apple had a duty to disclose this defect due to the safetyhazards it presents. On behalf of all iPhone 4 and 4s purchasers, over an unspecified period of time, Plaintiffs assert a RICO claim and a derivative claim pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200, et seq. (“UCL”).Before the Court now are Apple’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss and strike.(Docket No. 24, [Mot. to Compel Arbitration (“Compel Mem.”)]; Docket No. 22, [Mot. toDismiss (“Dismiss Mem.”)].) Apple moves to compel arbitration through equitable estoppel onthe basis that Plaintiffs’ RICO and UCL claims necessarily implicate the Wireless Customer Agreement (“WCA”) signed between Plaintiffs and AT&T. Apple moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on the basis that the claims are inadequately pleaded, and moves to strike one of Plaintiffs’ putative sub-classes on the basis that it necessarily containsiPhone purchasers who have suffered no injury.

Plaintiff Thompson asserts that on or about August 15, 2010, he purchased an iPhone 4 inBuda, Texas. (Docket No. 21, [Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”)] ¶ 7.) Plaintiff Missaghi assertsthat on or about October 15, 2011, he purchased an iPhone 4s in Los Angeles County. (Id.)Plaintiffs assert that “after a number of uses, the power button on the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4s becomes stuck,” after which “the user is unable to power off or reboot the device.” (Id. ¶ 8.)Plaintiffs assert that their respective power buttons became stuck and nonfunctional about threemonths after the expiration of the warranty. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiffs believe that the power buttons malfunctioned as a result of a design defect, which is present and affects or will affect alliPhone 4 and iPhone 4s devices. (Id. ¶ 11.)Plaintiffs assert that the design defect presents a safety hazard. (Id. ¶ 12.) First, when the power button defect manifests, it prevents users from powering off their iPhones on an airplane.(Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiffs put forth a quote from the Federal Aviation Administration websitewherein the FAA states that cell phone signals may unintentionally affect aircraft equipment.(Id. ¶ 13.) Second, Plaintiffs assert that the power button defect presents a safety hazard in that,once the defect manifests, the phone cannot be rebooted in the case of a glitch. (Id. ¶ 15.) This,Plaintiffs believe, is problematic because, if the phone suffers a glitch, users will be unable tocall 911 in case of an emergency. (Id. ¶ 16.)Plaintiffs allege that Apple was aware of the defect at the time it released the iPhone 4and 4s devices for sale, but failed to disclose the defect. (Id. ¶ 17.) Further, Plaintiffs allege thatApple was aware that the defect “would likely manifest after expiration of the warranty, [but] before the termination of the [user’s cell phone carrier service] contract[] . . . .” (Id. ¶ 18.) Thus,Plaintiffs allege that “the decision to withhold information about the power button defect was notonly part of a scheme to sell the defective [phones] at issue, but was also part of a scheme to selladditional [Apple] cellular phones in the period following the manifestation of the defect, and

CV 13-02003 GAF (AJWx)DateAugust 28, 2013TitleRoss Missaghi v. Apple Inc et al before the expiration of the individuals’ cell phone carrier contracts.” (Id. ¶ 19.)Once the defect manifested, Plaintiffs assert that they each took their respective phones toApple Stores, where employees told them that the defect was not repairable and thus the “user must either continue to use the [phone] in its diminished state, or purchase a replacement . . . .”(Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiffs also allege that Missaghi received a follow-up email to that effect. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs allege that Apple made the aforementioned representation to other iPhone 4 and 4s users pursuant to an official policy, but that the information was false and in fact provided as part of the scheme to cause Apple users to purchase additional Apple products. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.)

B.

RICO

F

ACTS

In order to establish a RICO claim, Plaintiffs make various allegations regarding therelationship between Apple and AT&T. Plaintiffs assert that beginning in or about 2005, Appleand AT&T entered into a joint venture whereby Apple and AT&T would jointly market theiPhone and AT&T would be the exclusive wireless carrier for five years. (Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiffsallege that “[t]he common purpose of this association in fact was, and continues to be, to sell asmany iPhones as possible.” (Id.) Plaintiffs further allege that there was a revenue sharingagreement between Apple and AT&T, whereby Apple “would receive part of the revenue fromAT&T sales of iPhones, and part of the revenue from monthly service contracts.” (Id. ¶ 30.)Plaintiffs assert that this association constitutes an enterprise, “which involved distribution and sales of defective products across state lines . . . .” (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.)Plaintiffs contend that, in order to further the purpose of the association, Apple“purposefully and deliberately concealed from consumers the power button defect . . . .” (Id. ¶31.) Plaintiffs allege that had Apple not concealed the defect, “AT&T would not have agreed tocontinue its association in fact with [Apple] with regard to the joint marketing and sales of the[iPhones].” (Id. ¶ 32.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that had they known about the defect, theywould not have purchased their iPhones or entered into a two year service agreement withAT&T. (Id. ¶ 33.)

C.

T

HE

C

LASSES

Plaintiffs purport to represent three subclasses:A. All purchasers of the iPhone 4 or iPhone 4s.B. All purchasers of the iPhone 4 or iPhone 4s who’s [sic] devices suffered the power